Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 23 May 2011

Last weekend, I slipped down to one of my favourite cinemas to check out Oceans, a new documentary that looks at a range of sea creatures and the curious world in which they inhabit.  I munched on my popcorn, sipped my coke and enjoyed the ride.  It was a great way to spend a relaxing Saturday morning.

To provide me with those 90 minutes of entertainment, directors Jacques Perrin and Jacques Cluzaud (Travelling Birds) invested 7 years of their lives.  They ventured to some of the world’s most stunning locations and shot a total of 480 hours worth of footage.  It came as no surprise to learn that the editing process took almost a year.

My reaction throughout much of the movie was one of astonishment.  Oceans contains some of the most beautiful imagery ever seen in a feature-length documentary.  I kept thinking to myself – how did they get so close to these creatures and film things so clearly?  If this weren’t a documentary, I’d have sworn that several scenes were put together using special effects.

In trying to depict the life of these curious sea creatures, the filmmakers sought out areas that had been unaffected by over-fishing and pollution.  Their toughest assignment was trying to capture underwater footage of the blue whale feeding on krill (which apparently had never been done before).  It took “28 weeks of patience” and “thousands of failures” according to director Jacques Perrin but finally they got what they wanted.

The only problem with the film is the unnecessary narration track provided by Pierce Brosnan.  He rambles on with pointless commentary instead of letting the visuals do the talking.  Put simply, it’s a distraction.  Hopefully the DVD version will include an option to “switch off narration”.  It will also allow us to better appreciate Bruno Coulais’s score.

Containing everything from a shark nabbing its “lunch” to a female walrus nurturing its baby, Oceans is for people of all ages and is a fun, enlightening film to watch.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 11 May 2011

I’m not exactly sure how much James Wan and Leigh Whannell have got in their bank accounts but I believe they’re doing very well for themselves.  These two Australians created one of the most profitable and recognisable movie franchises in recent memory.  I haven’t liked most of the films in the Saw series (it was all downhill after the squeamish original) but they continue to draw a crowd.  The last instalment (Saw 3D) took in roughly $136m around the globe.

It’s nice to see these guys sinking their teeth into something new.  They’ve crept away from the horror genre and crafted a supernatural thriller.  The film was shot in the United States but they’ve shown their support for home grown talent by casting two Aussies – Rose Byrne in a terrifying leading role and Angus Sampson in a humorous supporting role.

It begins as many of these films tend to do.  A family move into a new house and go about their life in an ordinary, everyday fashion.  Next thing you know, strange things start happening.  There are creepy noises, spooky apparitions and doors that open in the middle of the night.  It’s reminiscent of Paranormal Activity 2 and I’m sure a few scenes will leave you shrieking.

The story starts heading down a different path when one of the kids falls into a coma.  The doctors put him through every medical test imaginable and yet can’t find anything wrong with him.  Months pass and out of sheer desperation, they seek out an elderly woman who has experience in dealing with the supernatural.  What she tells the family will only add to this frightening situation…

I enjoyed the set up of the story and its characters but the film falls flat in the middle stages.  It feels like you’re just going through the motions, waiting for the big finale.  The introduction of comedy doesn’t work either.  Watching two morons stumble around the house with their silly instruments (Ghostbusters style) was an unnecessary distraction.

The ending is worth the wait.  You won’t be “jumping out of your seat” but it will keep you intrigued.  We’re almost being teased by the director.  He’s not going to show all his cards at once – Wan uses the lack of lighting, shaky camera and creepy music to keep us watching intently.  That’s about all I can say on that without giving away too much.

Insidious seems to have struck a cord with audiences.  The film has spent 5 weeks inside the top 10 at the box-office in the United States and chalked up over $50m in earnings.  When you consider it only cost $1.5m to produce, that’s a very healthy return.  James Wan and Leigh Whannell have done it again.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 17 May 2011

There are giant billboards around Brisbane at the moment advertising this latest chapter in the Pirates Of The Caribbean franchise.  They show Captain Jack Sparrow with his arms outstretched and in the lower right corner are the words “May 19”.  If you look closely, you’ll notice something missing from the billboard however – the title!

You have to admire the audacity of those behind the film’s marketing campaign.  This series is so powerful that you don’t even need to tell people the name of the movie.  Just the simple image of Johnny Depp dressed in a pirate’s costume will be enough to lure people to cinemas this weekend.  They’ll hand over their cash and ask for a ticket to “the Pirates movie”.

On that basis, my review is somewhat pointless.  There’s nothing I could say that will prevent anyone from seeing it.  If you made it through the last three Pirates flicks (at a combined length of 7 hours, 43 minutes), I’m confident you’ll want to reacquaint yourself with the Captain Jack Sparrow and his odd mannerisms.

Things are a little different this time around however.  Gore Verbinski has stepped aside (to work on some other projects) and Academy Award nominee Rob Marshall (Chicago, Memoirs Of A Geisha) has taken the helm as director.  There have been many changes amongst the cast too.  Noticeably absent are the English contingent - Orlando Bloom, Keira Knightley, Jack Davenport, Bill Nighy and Jonathan Pryce.

You’re wallet might also notice a change.  As Pirates Of The Caribbean: On Stranger Tides (the full title for what it’s worth) is the first in the series to be shot in 3D, be prepared to hand over a few extra dollars for this adventure.

If there’s one thing that you’ll take away from this review – let it be my strong recommendation that you see the 2D version instead.  Much of the film is set at night and so it’s not the kind of movie you want to be watching through tinted glasses.  With very little added from the special effects themselves, the decision to shoot 3D seems to be purely a financial one (i.e. adding to Disney’s coffers and helping pay Johnny Depp’s $35m salary).

My thoughts about this film are negative and that’s largely because of the convoluted plot.  It’s not fun at all.  The open half-hour is a complete snooze-fest – a drawn out chase sequence that gets tired very quickly.  An underwhelming cameo from an accomplished English actress only adds to the disappointment.

The introduction of Blackbeard (McShane) and his daughter Angelica (Cruz) give the film a small spark but again, they’re hampered by the muddled story.  The characters extricate themselves far too easily from difficult situations and there’s no sense of excitement.  You’re just going through the motions, watching a mishmash of subplots involving mermaids, Spaniards and stolen ships.  The finale is predictable to the point of being laughable.

All of that said, I had to chuckle during the last scene of the film as Jack Sparrow described his next adventure.  It was basically a confession – that the past two hours had been complete nonsense and that any future instalments would be just as ludicrous.  Perhaps the joke had been on us.

You can read/listen to my interview with star Geoffrey Rush by clicking here.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 08 May 2011

The year is 1931 and Jacob Jankowski (Pattinson) is aboard a train with a travelling circus troop.  A long-time member of the group offers him some friendly advice - “If you got any kind of life to go back to, that’s what you should do.”

Unfortunately for Jacob, he has nothing else.  His parents were killed in a car accident and the bank took possession of the family home.  With next-to-no money, he was forced to give up his veterinary studies and accept this job caring for circus animals.  The pay is dreadful (just $9 a week) and his living quarters are even worse.

The show’s star attraction is a beautiful woman named Marlena (Witherspoon).  She enters the arena on horseback and puts on a dazzling acrobatics display.  Always watching is the troop’s manager, August (Waltz).  He’s all smiles in front of the audience but things are very different behind the scenes.  August runs the business in a ruthless, domineering fashion.  While he sips champagne in his luxurious cabin, his employees and animals suffer in filthy working conditions.

There’s another reason that August keeps a close eye on Marlena.  She’s his wife.  The film doesn’t go into their background but you'll sense their marriage wasn’t based on pure love.  August wanted a striking young blonde to parade as his own.  Marlena wanted a distinguished suitor to provide wealth and security.

You should know where this story is going by now.  Jacob and Marlena become friends and with the help of a little flirtation, it threatens to develop into something much deeper.  It leaves Marlena searching her heart for answers.  Her life with August isn’t perfect but does she really want to give it all up and take a chance on a guy she hardly knows?  It reminded me of the dilemma faced by Kate Winslet’s character in James Cameron’s Titanic.  

I was pleased with the traditional, simplistic style used by director Francis Lawrence (I Am Legend) in bringing the film together.  The delicate score and softly-focused camera lens help transport us back into 1930s America and into this fulfilling tale of romance and circus animals.  The closing credits serve as a final confirmation that Lawrence wanted to make an “old school” movie.

I’ve quickly grown tired of the Twilight series and so it’s nice to see Robert Pattinson in a juicier role.  I enjoyed watching his relationship develop with Reese Witherspoon.  Instead of blurting out every feeling and emotion (which tends to be the norm in such films), these two go about things a little more slowly.  You’ll see the connection but also the trepidation as they struggle to gauge each other’s feelings.

I wasn’t a fan of the short, current day storyline (involving Hal Holbrook and Paul Schneider).  It felt unnecessary and as if the writers were trying to turn the film into some kind of “fairy tale”.  The time should have been used developing the supporting characters instead.  Others within the circus troop have a role to play but we don’t get to know them very well at all.

It’s not a movie that will blow you away but Water For Elephants is warm, comforting and easy to watch.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 12 May 2011

The Snowtown murders are a very dark chapter in Australia’s history.  Between 1992 and 1999, John Bunting orchestrated a total of 11 murders in South Australia.  He targeted those he thought were paedophiles, drug users and homosexuals.  Bunting and three others were arrested when several bodies were found by the authorities in an unused bank vault.

This film brings these events to the screen but not in a conventional manner.  For starters, the focus isn’t on John Bunting (Henshall).  It is told from the perspective of Jamie Vlassakis (Pittaway), a shy teenager who Bunting took under his wing and trained as his accomplice.  Writer Shaun Grant took this approach to help distinguish the story.  Instead of being a factual retelling of events, he explores the characters and leaves you with questions.  Was Jamie a born killer or was he merely John Bunting’s puppet?  Did Jamie’s mother know all of this going on and if so, what did she do to stop it?

The second time I saw Snowtown was at a special screening held by the BIFF Film Club.  Director Justin Kurzel may have been in attendance but it didn’t stop roughly 25 people from walking out before the end.  They weren’t leaving because it was a bad movie (at least I don’t think so) but because of its shocking content.  I can’t blame them.  This is one of the most unsettling films that I’ve seen in a long time.

I was lucky enough to host the Q&A session with Justin Kurzel after the screening and we spoke about the graphic nature of several key scenes.  He noted that many other filmmakers had tried to bring the Snowtown story to the big screen without success.  They wanted to follow in the Wolf Creek mould and make something that was part horror, part entertainment.

Kurzel chose a different path.  He didn’t want to “sugar coat” this tragic story but rather, wanted to provide a realistic portrayal of John Bunting, his family and the local community.  You can choose not to see this film but you can’t deny that these events took place.  Kurzel is merely opening our eyes to a part of Australian society that many try to keep from public view.  To borrow an analogy from a friend on Twitter (Sarah Moran), “it’s The Castle of fucked up lives around Australia.”

The fact so many people left the preview is a compliment in my opinion.  It shows what a powerful job Kurzel has done in recreating the story.  There were more killings in Scream 4 but those in the audience didn’t walk out because they knew it was “movie violence”.  The strong performances (all from unknown actors), the lack of music and the gritty cinematography make this feel all too real.

The film’s only major weakness is the way in introduces its characters.  The opening 15 minutes is particularly fragmented.  It takes a while to work out “who’s who” and figure out their place in the story.  The arrival of John Bunting and a disturbing "neighbourhood watch” meeting help make things clearer.

Having been selected to screen as part of Critic’s Week at the Cannes Film Festival, Snowtown is a film you’ll be talking about long after you’ve left the theatre… whether you like it or not.